Theories of Janes after Husband's Death - Case Study Example

Vignette Analysis of Jane’s Case Vignette Analysis of Jane’s Case Introduction Vignette analysis is one of the reliable methods used in the understanding of different opinions and views of situations or experiences. A successful vignette analysis presents diverse views from different informants concerning a certain topic. In the case of Jane, who experienced a car accident that killed her husband living as the survivor of the ordeal has a psychological problem. After the incident, Jane’s life has changed immensely. Her family feels that she has taken too long to get over the accident and move on with her life. A team of experts from the behavioral, social cognitive and cognitive schools of personality, to analyze Jane’s case from different perspectives, will use the vignette analysis methodology. Therefore, this paper will present the evaluation of one of the teams working on this case. Analysis of Jane’s Case using Pavlov and Skinner Theories Ivan Pavlov developed his theory of classical conditioning after conducting several experiments on his dogs. Classical conditioning denotes an automatic or reflexive learning evident when a certain stimulus adopts the capacity to evoke responses associated with a different stimulus. Classical conditioning leads to associative learning, which motivates and individual to create new associations between various events evident in the environment. Classical conditioning is evident in humans and is one of the behaviorist theories that have been widely explored. Classical conditioning results from interactions with the environment. Actually, behaviorists supporting classical conditioning highlight that the environment has the potential to define people’s behavior (Cervone & Pervin, 2013). These behaviorists believe that the effect of the environment is stronger than a person’s internal mental state in influencing behavior. Classical conditioning highlights that there must be a natural stimulus that triggers a specific response before the condition occurs. Before conditioning, responses can only be triggered by an unconditioned stimulus. During conditioning, a conditioned stimulus becomes evident. Therefore, individuals are likely to respond to the conditioned stimulus after the conditioned process depicting a similar response to the one triggered by the unconditioned stimulus (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2013). In the case of Jane, being involved in a car accident resulted to classical conditioning. A natural response of being involved in a car accident is fear. However, Jane has begun to associate all cars and vehicles with potential accidents. She is afraid that being in a car or moving around will lead to another accident. Classical conditioning occurs involuntarily and motivates an individual to associate conditioned stimuli with certain responses. Now, Jane is undergoing classical conditioning. She has a phobia of all cars, because of the frightening car accident that killed her husband. Her continued fear of vehicles, explains the reality of classical conditioning, which persists for long. Although she is in need of therapy, she cannot overcome her phobia for vehicles and move out of the house. She has chosen to remain indoors because of the uncontrollable fear (VandenBos, Meidenbauer, & In Frank-McNeil, 2014). On the other hand, Skinner developed his theory of operant conditioning. The purpose of operant conditioning is either to weaken or strengthen identified voluntary behaviors. It makes use of both reinforcements and punishment depending on the purpose of the conditioning. In order to increase the frequency of desirable behavior, reinforcement comes into place (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2013). On the other hand, punishment is of critical use in decreasing the frequency of undesirable behavior. In the case of Jane, operant conditioning is applicable in explaining why her family had changed her attitude their attitude towards her. After the terrible accident that killed her husband, Jane developed a phobia that has affected her entire life. In the initial days, her family gave her the required support and made effort of meeting all her needs. In their view, they expected that Jane’s life would become normal once again after a while. However, this did not happen as Jane remained indoors and exhibited her fear for all automobiles (Cervone & Pervin, 2013). The family developed a conviction that Jane was using the accident as a strategy to gain their constant attention. Therefore, they stopped attending to her needs. This is a clear case of operant conditioning. In the view of the family, Jane’s behavior was becoming undesirable because she had spent too much time getting over the car accident issue. Therefore, they sought to punish her by failing to attend to her needs so that she can reduce the frequency of her undesirable behavior. Although Jane did not exhibit the required behavioral change, the family’s move was motivated by the operant conditioning basics. They thought that neglecting Jane would help her realize that her behavior was undesirable and begin to recollect her life once more. However, Jane did not take the initiative to change her behavior. On the contrary, she felt more depressed. Analysis of Jane’s Case using George Kelly’s Theory In the 1950s, Kelly developed his theory of personal constructs. He opined that the world was the same for all individuals, but each person perceived it differently. The above is the case because of mental constructs that each individual applied when viewing reality. Human beings exhibit a constant need to understand the world around them. Their mental constructs are dependent on their experiences and observations. These personal constructs are of critical importance because individuals rely on them in the interpretation of events. According to Kelly, human beings have an active role in their interpretation of knowledge. Through different constructs, individuals challenge their belief systems and perceptions. If such belief systems seem applicable, the individual strengthens them. On the other hand, belief systems that prove inappropriate motivate the individual to change perceptions. Kelly highlighted that personal constructs are of critical importance as they can predict and anticipate future events determining a person’s thought process, exhibited behavior as well as feelings (Cervone & Pervin, 2013). After developing personal constructs, they serve as hypothesis tested in different situations. The hypotheses that prove useful are used for future reference. In Jane’s case, she has formed a personal construct after the accident, which occurred. She seeks to believe that being in any automobile will translate to an additional accident, which may kill her the way it killed her husband. She has formed a negative construct about the accident which she used to predict the future events. This explains why the thought of moving out of the house terrifies her immensely; hence, she prefers to remain indoors. Her experience in the car accident has defined the personal construct she has at the moment. She believes that the experience will repeat itself in the future if she moves out of the house. Moreover, she views the change of her family’s behavior as a sign of neglect. This is because they had been supporting her initially, but they have decided to give her little attention. This change of behavior has resulted in an additional construct, which makes her feel that she is unwanted. Notably, a different person in similar situations with Jane would maybe view them differently and develop different constructs. It is possible that in the future Jane’s personal constructs will be under test. If they fail, she is likely to change her views towards automobiles. On the other hand, Jane’s family members have developed constructs based on their experience with her. They tend to believe that her increased phobia for automobiles is a strategy to gain attention (VandenBos, Meidenbauer, & In Frank-McNeil, 2014). In accordance to this construct, they have decided to stop fulfilling her needs. Maybe with time, they will realize that their hypotheses were wrong. Analysis of Jane’s Case using Bandura and Mischel Theories Bandura and Mischel developed social cognitive theories of personality, which can apply to Jane’s case. Bandura’s personality theory has its basis on observational learning. Observational learning involves the reliance on role models in the identification of desirable behavior, which an individual emulates. According to Bandura, reinforcement in observational learning, which comes through approval of the behavior, serves as a precondition for the next reinforcement. This is because it provides the relevant information associated with the repeated behavior (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2013). Therefore, Bandura opined that the environment affects people’s behavior and a person’s behavior has the capacity to alter the environment. He developed the theory of reciprocal determinism, which defines the interaction between a person’s behavior and the changing environment. Bandura opined that both personal characteristics and the specific situation that an individual faces contribute to the development of behavior. Personal characteristics in this case denote belief systems, habits, as well as temperaments. A specific situation in the environment may present either an opportunity or a reward (Cervone & Pervin, 2013). In other cases, the environment comprises of punishments, which may trigger the decrease of certain behaviors. Reciprocal determinism defines the two-way interaction between the individual’s characteristics as well as the environmental features. Bandura also gave reference to the relevance of an individual’s psychological processes as a third factor that affects an individual’s behavior. A person’s psychological processes determine how a persona interprets different stimuli. This can have a direct effect on behavior. This theory is applicable to Jane’s case because reciprocal determinism is evident. In the first scenario of the accident, the environment presented a threat evident through the car accident and the subsequent death of her husband. The accident altered Jane’s behavior completely. She became terrified, depressed, and with a phobia about moving out of the house. This has changed her from the person who interacted with the world to a depressed person sticking indoors. This is an illustration of how environmental factors can change an individual’s behavior. On the other hand, her change of behavior has contributed to the changing environment within her home. The once supportive family members have chosen to give up on her and no longer fulfill her demands. The case of Jane reflects reciprocal determinism because the interactions between behavior and the environment are evident (VandenBos, Meidenbauer, & In Frank-McNeil, 2014). On the other hand, Walter Mischel developed his personality theory, which highlights that the behavior of an individual is dependent on the specific situation as well as the person’s perception of the situation. When viewing different situations, different individuals have varying values and expectancies, which affect their perception. Mischel highlighted five person variables that determine how an individual perceives a certain situation (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2013). These include personal competencies, expectancies, cognitive strategies, subjective values, as well as self-regulatory systems. These person variables often determine how an individual will view a certain situation. They also explain the differences exhibited by people in the perception of a similar situation. Jane’s case serves as an appropriate illustration of Mischel’s theory. Evidently, Jane’s perceptions towards the accident have determined her resulting behavior. Her perception depended on her competencies, cognitive strategies, expectancies, subjective values, and self-regulatory systems (Cervone & Pervin, 2013). For Jane, the accident was a threatening situation. She still associates being in an automobile as a threat as well. Her personal competencies have not allowed her to exhibit resilience and appreciate the occurrence of unexpected events. Therefore, she perceives automobiles negatively. This has changed her behavior and she opts to avoid moving about. Her self-regulatory systems have a contribution in her decision to no longer move about in a vehicle. The above is what Mischel describes concerning person variables that determine an individual’s behavior. She also perceives the situation with her family differently. Although the family wants her to overcome the accident and the associated trauma, she believes that their actions signify that she is unwanted. Analysis of Jane’s Case Using Aaron Beck and Ellis’ Theory Ellis and Beck developed the cognitive behavioral theory. The cognitive behavioral theory has its basis on an individual’s cognitive and the associated emotions as well as the resulting behavior. Although the psychologists were working independently, their theories had numerous similarities. They opined that dysfunctional thoughts resulting from negative cognitive processes triggered extreme emotions. Consequently, extreme emotions have the capacity to lead to the development of maladaptive behaviors. The two psychologists had the conviction that there is power in a person’s thought process. According to Ellis, individuals encounter different activating events that lead to the development of belief systems. People’s beliefs concerning different events, themselves, or others contribute to emotional consequences. The behavior exhibited is a consequence of the emotions developed (VandenBos, Meidenbauer, & In Frank-McNeil, 2014). People who suffer in the world today are facing the consequences of their irrational belief systems as well as dysfunctional thought processes. Ellis highlighted more specifically that irrational core beliefs determine an individual’s perception towards the self and the world. Therefore, people develop negative belief systems and doubt their capacities. These results from the negative emotions associated with irrational core beliefs. Usually, a rational analysis of these belief systems may highlight that there is no proper basis or evidence supporting the irrational core beliefs. This is why they developed the rational cognitive behavioral theory. This theory seeks to highlight the activating events, which triggered certain belief systems that brought forth extreme emotions and eventually dysfunctional behaviors (VandenBos, Meidenbauer, & In Frank-McNeil, 2014). This means that an individual must identify the core course of the current dysfunctional behavior. According to Beck, distorted thinking has the potential of influencing an individual’s understanding of the environment as well as events. More specifically, Beck highlighted that the thoughts an individual develops about an event determine the resulting behavior. The thought process results from a person’s assumptions about the world, other people, and the self. In the case of Jane, it is evident that the car accident served as an activating event, which made her believe that automobiles are dangerous. Therefore, she developed a strong phobia for all automobiles. This is the reason why she prefers to remain indoors and avoids moving around, which may require her to use an automobile. Evidently, Jane’s current situation is the result of her distorted thinking. It is true that automobiles may cause accidents occasionally (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2013). However, it does not mean that one uses an automobile an accident will occur. However, Jane seems to believe that getting into an automobile will translate to an accident and subsequent death. This distorted belief has served to shatter her whole life. Jane is unable to live a normal life and she has become over reliant on her family members. Now, Jane believes that she is unwanted by the family. She developed this belief system because the family members no longer struggle to meet her demands (VandenBos, Meidenbauer, & In Frank-McNeil, 2014). Although the family members have their reasons for doing this, Jane has interpreted it differently. As a result, she feels highly depressed and unloved and she is even considering suicide. Adopting a rational analysis of her situation can be an effective solution for Jane. Conclusion Evidently, Jane’s case can further be explained using different behavioral and cognitive theories that have been developed by different psychologists. The therapy that Jane will receive will depend on how the therapist understands Jane’s situation and applies the theories effectively in an effort to help her. It is evident that the car accident changed Jane’s life. The behavioral changes associated with a tragic event are discussed using different psychological theories. Different therapists will view the case from the perspective of different theories. Worth noting is the fact that it is possible to address Jane’s effectively after identifying the factors that have contributed to her change in behavior. References Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. (2013). Personality Theory and Research. New Jersey: Wiley Global Education. VandenBos, G. R., Meidenbauer, E., & In Frank-McNeil, J. (2014). Psychotherapy theories and techniques: A reader. Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2013). Counseling and psychotherapy theories in context and practice: Skills, strategies, and techniques. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Read More